Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Grassroots social innovation and the mobilisation of values in collaborative consumption: a conceptual model

* Chris J. Martin a, , Paul Upham b, c a Department of Public Leadership and Social Enterprise, The Open University Business School, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, UK b The Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK c The Energy Research Institute, School of Chemical and Process Engineering, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK article info abstract

Article history: There is growing interest in the potential of grassroots innovations to play a role in the transition to Received 16 December 2014 sustainable production and consumption systems. However, the role of values has been little considered Received in revised form in relation to the development and diffusion of grassroots innovations. We develop a conceptual model 19 March 2015 of how citizens' values are mobilised by grassroots innovations, drawing on the value theory of Schwartz Accepted 18 April 2015 et al. (2012) and the theory of collective enactment of values of Chen et al. (2013). Using the results of a Available online 28 April 2015 large scale survey of free reuse groups (e.g. Freecycle and Freegle), which enable collaborative forms of consumption, we apply the conceptual model to explore how participants' values are mobilised and Keywords: fi Grassroots innovation expressed. We show that while the majority of free reuse group participants do hold signi cantly Reuse stronger self-transcendence (i.e. pro-social) values than the wider UK population, they also hold other Values values in common with that population and a minority actually place less emphasis on self- Transitions transcendence values. We conclude that diffusion of this particular grassroots innovation is unlikely to Social innovation be simply value limited and that structural features may be more significant. Collaborative consumption © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction In terms of the latter, research in the field of socio-technical transitions has tended to focus on the potential of technological It has long been recognised that the systems of production and innovations and the market economy to drive the transition to a consumption in industrialised consumerist societies are unsus- sustainable society (Markard et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2010). tainable (Rockstrom et al., 2009). However, many questions remain However, there is now growing interest in civil society as an over- regarding how and why we are locked into these unsustainable looked site from which ‘grassroots social innovations’ with poten- systems, what a transition to more sustainable systems might look tial to contribute to this transition may emerge (Seyfang and Smith, like and how such a transition might take place (Vergragt et al., 2007). Seyfang and Smith (2007: 585) “use the term ‘grassroots 2014). As populations grow ever more urbanised (The World innovations’ to describe networks of activists and organisations Bank, 2014) the role of cities in both the reproduction of these generating novel bottomeup solutions for sustainable develop- unsustainable systems and the transition to sustainable systems ment; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests grows ever more important (e.g. Bulkeley et al., 2010; Hodson and and values of the communities involved”. To date, grassroots Marvin, 2010). To address the transdisciplinary questions posed, innovation research has focussed on the dynamics of international above, the emerging field of sustainable production and con- and national networks of social economy and civil society actors sumption systems research seeks to integrate perspectives (Vergragt et al., 2014). Such networks of grassroots innovation including social practices, environmental psychology, economics, connect societal experiments, which take the form of community- governance, social movements and socio-technical transitions based initiatives grounded in a specific local context and explore (Vergragt et al., 2014). alternative configurations of urban production and consumption systems (Heiskanen et al., 2015). Studies of grassroots innovation have explored the promises and perils of community energy sys- tems (Hargreaves et al., 2013a), cohousing provision (Boyer, 2014), * Corresponding author. community currencies (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2013), local food E-mail address: [email protected] (C.J. Martin). production systems (Kirwan et al., 2013), and democratic http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.062 0959-6526/© 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 205 innovation systems (Smith et al., 2014). Such research has tended to delineate between individual (Schwartz, 1992), collective (Chen draw upon models from transitions theory originally developed to et al., 2013) and cultural values (Schwartz, 1999). Consequently, explain the dynamics of technological innovations in the market the literatures that relate to values are substantial, spanning large economy e e.g. niche development theory (Geels and Raven, 2006). areas of social psychology and sociology. A full review is beyond the Hence, it is unsurprising that the central role of values in grassroots scope of this paper and we suggest Hitlin and Piliavin (2004) and innovations has been acknowledged but remains to be explicitly Dietz et al. (2005) as an initial starting point for an overview of the conceptualised. Furthermore, Seyfang and Smith (2007: 599) argue literature. Here, we select and integrate theories of values aligned that “Grassroots initiatives exhibit their own micro-politics and can with our objective of understanding how societal experiments be exclusive to some and inclusive to others. Much work needs to within grassroots innovations respond to and mobilise the values of be done regarding ‘whose’ alternative values are being mobilised in participants. In particular we integrate theory enabling the explo- niches”. ration of the values of participants in a societal experiment, along Here we show how societal experiments e within ‘grassroots with the ways in which collective activities, such as societal ex- innovation’ networks e respond to and mobilise the values of the periments, are shaped by and seek to shape values. citizens involved. We offer a conceptual model of these processes Individual values are usually theorised as mental structures, that spans two scales of analysis: (1) the individual scale e constructs with motivational implications. Schwartz and Bilsky exploring which values are held by people participating in societal (1987: 551) thus identify five core features of values: “According experiments; and (2) the collective scale e at which values are to the literature, values are (a) concepts or beliefs, (b) about mobilised within societal experiments. To develop the conceptual desirable end states or behaviours, (c) that transcend specific sit- model, we draw on theory from social psychology on basic values uations, (d) guide selection or evaluation of behavior and events, (Schwartz, 1992, 2006; Schwartz et al., 2012) and sociological and (e) are ordered by relative importance”. Schwartz (1992) has theory on the collective enactment of values (Chen et al., 2013). We developed a prominent theory of individual values, which has been apply, test and discuss the model with a case study of the role of applied in hundreds of research studies (Schwartz et al., 2012). This values in online, free reuse groups such as Freecycle. These groups theory identifies ten basic values (see Table 1) which Schwartz have millions of members across the world (Freecycle, 2014; argues are grounded in universal human requirements for survival Freegle, 2014a) and enable people to freely and directly give un- and existence, including biological needs and the need for social wanted items to others in their local area (rather than sending coordination (Schwartz, 1992). The ten values are theorised to form items to their local authority waste management system). In gen- a circular motivational continuum (see Fig. 1) where the distinction eral, online free reuse groups enable a form of collaborative con- between adjacent values is blurred (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., sumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2011) and hold potential to reduce 2012) and the proximity or distance between a given pair of values consumption and waste in cities by extending product lifetimes. suggests the degree of compatibility or conflict between them. In the next section we outline the core theoretical constructs on Furthermore, each basic value is theorised to be connected to one of which our conceptual model is based. We then present the back- four more abstract values: openness to change, conservation, self- ground to the research, describing how free reuse groups operate transcendence and self-enhancement (see Fig. 1). Two scales for and how they have developed. This is followed by an overview of measuring the importance an individual places on each of the the research methodology, a large scale survey measuring the values have been developed and extensively tested; the Schwartz values of free reuse group participants. Finally, the survey results Value Survey (Schwartz, 1992) and the Portrait Value Questionnaire are presented and then discussed, highlighting the implications of (PVQ) (Schwartz, 2006). our research findings for the diffusion of grassroots innovations. In order to conceptualise how societal experiments within grassroots innovations mobilise and respond to the values of par- 2. Theory ticipants, we draw on a sociological perspective on values and or- ganisations. Chen et al. (2013: 857) identify organisations as one The study of grassroots innovations (Seyfang and Smith, 2007) context “where values are collectively enacted or carried out”. has emerged within the field of socio-technical and sustainability Further developing their argument that “Values may be discerned transitions (Markard et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2010). Research in in any organization's goals, practices, and forms, including “value- this field focuses on the dynamics of societal transformation, i.e. free” bureaucracies and collectivist organizations with participa- transitions, conceptualising these dynamics as interactions be- tory practices” (Chen et al., 2013: 856). Based upon a review of tween the multi-level socio-technical structures that constitute organisational and sociological research Chen et al. (2013) suggest society (Geels, 2005). Much of the research around transitions is that far from being value-free, organisations in practice reflect, concerned with the emergence, development and diffusion of enact and propagate values. Drawing on this model we argue that market-based technological eco-innovations with potential to the mobilisation of values within societal experiments can be un- contribute to the transition to a sustainable society. Furthermore, derstood in terms of the processes of reflection, enactment and studies of grassroots innovations have tended to evaluate the propagation (Chen et al., 2013) as outlined below. applicability of aspects of transitions theory originally developed to explain the dynamics of technological and market-driven Reflection e the outcomes, processes and structures of societal innovation (e.g. Seyfang and Longhurst, 2013). Unsurprisingly, experiments reflect values. Furthermore, the values reflected these theories do not yet account for the value driven nature of and the meanings associated with these values may vary grassroots innovations. So whilst the emerging studies of grass- depending on the perspective adopted. roots innovation have focussed on community activities driven by Enactment e societal experiments provide space in which par- radical (deep green) values there has been considerable ambiguity ticipants and activists can collectively enact both mainstream in the role played by these values. and marginalised values. Furthermore, values can be enacted Values are a contested but widely and variously used concept in both through the objectives (ends), and the collective practices the social sciences. Indeed Hitlin and Piliavin (2004: 360) identify (means), of societal experiments. that there “are at least four concepts with which values are Propagation e values are propagated both within societal ex- conflated: attitudes, traits, norms, and needs”. Furthermore, values periments and beyond their boundaries. In both cases institu- are theorised to be held and enacted at multiple scales, so we can tional work e i.e. the efforts of “individual and collective actors 206 C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213

Table 1 Conceptual definitions of 10 basic values according to their motivational goals (Schwartz et al., 2012).

Basic value Definitions of basic values according to their motivational goals

Self-direction Independent thought and action Stimulation Choosing, creating, exploring excitement, novelty, and challenge in life Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms Tradition Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provides Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature

mobilised. In this paper we focus on the mobilisation of Schwartz's ten basic values, but also readily acknowledge the need for further research to explore more complex and less widely held individual, organisational and cultural values. A key premise of the study is that the rate and extent of the diffusion of grassroots innovation is in part a function of the degree of fit with the predominant distribution of basic values across the general population. This assumption underpins the related notion of institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana et al., 2009), in which change agents are conceived of as deliberately using discursive framings that resonate with existing interests, values and familiar frames, the importance of which has been emphasised elsewhere in the sustainable consumption literature in terms of institutional innovation (Dendler, 2014). Hence where a grassroots innovation appeals only to people with very strong self-transcendence values, it can be hypothesised that its potential for diffusion is likely to be limited by the relatively small number of people holding such values.

3. Material and methods Fig. 1. Theoretical model of relations between 10 basic values (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz et al., 2012). 3.1. Description of online free reuse groups

Online free reuse groups are based on the premise that: “there is ” aimed at creating, maintaining ... [or] disrupting institutions no such things as waste, it is just useful stuff in the wrong place” e (Lawrence et al., 2011: 52) seeking to propagate novel prac- (Botsman and Rogers, 2011: 124). These groups allow citizens, and tices also propagates associated values. to a lesser extent organisations, the opportunity to gift items that they no longer require to others within their local area. Groups take Fig. 2 illustrates our model of how societal experiments within the material form of an online message board: members can post grassroots innovations mobilise the values of the participants. We OFFER messages e offering an item (for free) that they no longer hypothesise that participants' values are mobilised within societal require; and WANTED messages e requesting an item that some- fl experiments through the processes of re ection, enactment and one else in the group might be willing to give to them. Members propagation. Furthermore, the values of activists, organisations and contact each other directly in response to a post. The members then grassroots innovation networks are hypothesised as shaping the arrange a time and location to pass on the item, often the member processes and outcomes of those participant values that are receiving the item will collected it from the home of the member gifting it. A diverse range of items are given away using free reuse groups including furniture, and other domestic items such as kitchenware, soft furnishings and consumer electronics (Groomes and Seyfang, 2012). Groups are open to anyone within a specified geographic area to join, limiting the distance people need to travel to collect items (Botsman and Rogers, 2011). Each free reuse group is supported by local volunteers who facilitate group activity (e.g. removing illegal or inappropriate posts, helping members with technical issues) and promote reuse within their communities. The majority of free reuse groups and volunteers in the UK are affiliated to a grassroots network, either Freecycle e 582 groups with 3,732,966 members (Freecycle, 2014) e or Freegle e 399 groups with 1,890,823 members (Freegle, 2014a). Freegle was formed in 2009 when hundreds of volunteers concerned by the erosion of the grassroots ethos within Freecycle Fig. 2. The mobilisation of basic values within societal experiments. (Freegle, 2014a) broke away to form a new UK network (Jones, C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 207

issues. Alternatively, the groups can be viewed as enabling a form of collaborative consumption (Botsman and Rogers, 2011) e whereby the groups act as a digitally-mediated redistribution market for second-hand items. Thirdly, from a sociological perspective the groups can be viewed as providing members with the opportunity to perform social practices including the practices of reuse, gifting (Guillard and Bucchia, 2012a) and anti-consumption (Black and Cherrier, 2010). Furthermore, we suggest that the concepts of ethical citizenship (Schrader, 2007) and ecological citizenship (Seyfang, 2006) are also helpful means of framing participation within free reuse groups. Such concepts highlight that some group members are likely to consider their participation to be part of their wider ethical or ecological responsibilities as citizens. However, with each of the perspectives above there is a risk of idealising the nature of free reuse groups and the motivations of their members (Foden, 2012). Rather, the academic literature, and Fig. 3. The structure of the Freecycle and Freegle networks. material on the websites of free reuse groups, suggests that a wide range of factors motivate those participating in groups, including those listed below. 2009). The membership figures above are likely to overstate the participation in free reuse groups in the UK as many members are Motivations for giving away items include seeking to: experi- inactive or join multiple Freecycle and Freegle groups. However, ence the pleasure associated with the act of making a gift what these figures do suggest is that the concept of the free reuse (Nelson and Rademacher, 2009); avoid the inconveniences of group has some traction beyond highly motivated environmental- other forms of waste disposal (Groomes and Seyfang, 2012; ists and community activists. Guillard and Bucchia, 2012b); make a charitable gift to a per- Here we view online free reuse groups as a grassroots innova- son in need (Guillard and Bucchia, 2012b; Nelson and tion consisting of two socio-technical networks e Freecycle and Rademacher, 2009); support the local community (Nelson Freegle. Each network spans a national umbrella organisation,1 et al., 2007); or, act on environment concerns (Foden, 2012). local groups, volunteers and group members (see Fig. 3). Each Motivations for requesting items include seeking to: save money component of the networks can be mapped to the key grassroots by acquiring items for free (Nelson et al., 2007); act on envi- innovation concepts referred to above, as follows: ronment concerns (Foden, 2012); acquire items to resell for profit or for charitable causes (Freecycle, 2009); or, through Free reuse groups e societal experiments in collaborative financial necessity, acquire items that could not otherwise be consumption; afforded (Foden, 2012). Volunteers e activists facilitating, and promoting participation in, societal experiments; Furthermore, the important role played by values in motivating Group members e participants in a societal experiment and participation in free reuse groups has been previously emphasised, members of the community impacted upon by the experiment; but remains to be explored in depth. Foden (2012) argues that Umbrella organisations e intermediary organisations seeking to participation in groups allows individuals to meet a need create and maintain protective space (Smith and Raven, 2012) (disposing of or acquiring an item) in a way that is consistent with for societal experimentation. their values. Whilst, Nelson et al. (2007) go further to argue that participants hold different consumption values to those engaged in The nature of the activity taking place within free reuse groups mainstream consumer culture. defies easy categorisation, and hence it is helpful to consider how different aspects of the activity can be conceptualised from 3.2. The online survey different disciplinary perspectives. First, from an economic perspective activity within free reuse groups can be viewed as a We conducted an online survey measuring the values of Freegle form of generalised reciprocal exchange (Willer et al., 2012) e group members. Between May and September 2014 we iteratively whereby individuals give items to other members of the group on developed the online survey, integrating extensive feedback on the the implicit understanding that they can in the future draw on the survey design from the directors of the Freegle umbrella organi- generosity of the group. Secondly, from a consumer behaviour sation. The survey design was also informed by a pilot survey which perspective the groups can be viewed as enabling a form of con- ran during August 2014 and received 306 responses. The final sumption that challenges the dominant practices of consumer version of the survey ran in October 2014 and received 3419 re- culture. In this case, people acquiring items from the groups might sponses; following data cleaning 2692 responses were analysed. be considered to be engaged in a form of ethical consumption The central component of the survey was the Portrait Values (Carrington et al., 2010) or sustainable consumption (Young et al., Questionnaire (Schwartz, 2006) consisting of 21 questions which 2010). In these forms of consumption individuals exercise the po- measure the emphasis placed by an individual on ten basic values wer of consumer choice as part of an effort to lead ethical or sus- (see Table 1). The survey also included a set of questions to capture tainable lifestyles and/or raise the profile of social or environmental basic demographic data. The sampling approach was opportunistic or convenience- based, in which survey responses were sought from as many members of Freegle groups across the UK as possible, without 1 The two distinct umbrella organisations play a role in governing the activities of stratification or random sampling. A message about the survey was groups, mobilising resources to support groups, and promoting networking be- tween volunteers. We use the term socio-technical rather than social because the posted by a Freegle director to an online message board used by internet is a key feature of group functioning. approximately 500 volunteers who run Freegle groups. The 208 C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 message asked the volunteers to consider sending out an email and £49,999; and 26% e £50,000 or over. Survey respondents ten- inviting members of their group to take part in the survey. The ded to emphasise the values of benevolence, universalism and self- sampling approach was informed by the experience of a pilot sur- direction, as shown by the negative mean value scores in Table 2. vey and sought to work with the structures of an established online Comparison of the mean value scores of survey respondents and community. The pilot study was intended to be distributed to the general UK population shows statistically significant differ- members of two online reuse sub-groups. However, Freegle vol- ences across all values (see Table 2, Fig. 4 and Supplementary Data unteers became aware of the survey through their online networks 1). While the relationships between environmental values and and started sending out an invite to take part in the survey to demographics are complex, the demographic specificity of the additional groups. The experience highlighted the challenges of Freegle group should be borne in mind when generalising to other constraining the distribution of the survey to a defined set of sub- social innovations, the demographics of which will vary. groups. Furthermore, given the sampling approach it is difficult to The cluster analysis of the respondent's values identified three estimate the response rate, although it is likely to be rather low e a clusters with distinct value profiles (shown in Table 3 and Fig. 5). previous survey of free reuse groups achieved a response rate of Furthermore, the mean value scores in each cluster differ from the approximately 3% (Nelson et al., 2007). In short, all we can say with scores of the UK population in different ways. a reasonable level of reliability is that the respondents are inter- ested, self-selected members of UK online free reuse groups. We Cluster 1 includes 1005 Freegle members (37% of survey re- make no claims that the survey sample is representative of the spondents) with a strong emphasis on self-transcendence wider community of Freegle members. (benevolence and universalism) and openness to change The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) consists of a series of values (self-direction and stimulation). Furthermore, compari- questions that ask survey respondents to record how similar they son of mean value scores shows that cluster 1 members place a are to a person portrayed in a short description (i.e. a portrait). Each significantly stronger emphasis on both self-transcendence and portrait implicitly emphasises one of ten basic values. For instance, openness to change values than members of the UK population. the portrait “He/she strongly believes that people should care for Cluster 2 includes 616 Freegle users (23% of survey respondents) nature. Looking after the environment is important to him” em- with a strong emphasis on self-transcendence (benevolence and phasises the value of universalism. Responses were made on the universalism) and conservation values (tradition, security and following scale: 1 e “very much like me”,2e “like me”,3e conformity). Again, comparison of mean value scores shows that “somewhat like me”,4e “a little like me”,5e “not like me”,6e not cluster 2 members place a significantly stronger emphasis on like me at all”. The personal values of the survey respondents are both self-transcendence and conservation values than members thus inferred on the basis of similarity to the values of the portraits. of the UK population. Each PVQ question relates to one of ten basic values and responses Cluster 3 includes 1071 Freegle users (40% of survey re- were summed to create a raw score for each value for each survey spondents) who place a weaker emphasis, compared to the respondent. These raw values score were then centred as recom- other two clusters, on self-transcendence values (benevolence mended by Schwartz (2006) e i.e. the mean of an individual's raw and universalism) and place some emphasis on self-direction value responses is subtracted from each raw value score in turn. and security values. Although members of this cluster tend to Hence, a negative score indicates that the value is emphasised (i.e. emphasise self-transcendence values, they do so to a lesser it is less than the mean response). degree than the UK population. Hence, and perhaps surprisingly, Having calculated the 10 basic value scores for each survey the composition of cluster 3 suggests that free reuse groups may respondent we then conducted a cluster analysis to identify groups have an appeal beyond to citizens beyond those possessing very of survey participants with similar values. The cluster analysis was strong pro-social (i.e. self-transcendence) values. It demon- performed using the two-step clustering algorithm provided by strates that participation in pro-environmental grassroots SPSS v.21. We generated and reviewed solutions with between two innovation is not wholly dependent on pro-sociality. Hence, and six clusters, selecting the three cluster solution based on the helping to explain how the groups are able grow beyond a small silhouette scores (Rousseeuw, 1987) and visual inspection of the activist vanguard, reflected by the engagement (albeit fleeting descriptive statistics of the clusters. We then compared the distri- or extensive) of millions of citizens in free reuse groups in the bution of value scores for each of the clusters to the distribution of UK. value scores of the UK population as measured by the European Social Survey.2 Statistically significant differences (CI: 99%) be- tween the mean value scores of survey respondents and the UK 5. Discussion population were identified using the independent samples t-test. 5.1. Enacting values within free reuse groups

4. Results The enactment of self-transcendence values is central to the dynamics of free reuse groups, indeed the central action within the The majority of respondents to the 2692 survey were female groups is that of giving an unwanted item freely to a stranger. (67%) and highly educated (63% held a university degree). The ages Unsurprisingly, across all three clusters the users of Freegle tend to of respondents ranged from 14 to 90 years old, however re- express the self-transcendence values of universalism and benev- spondents tended to be aged between 40 and 66 years old (mean olence, as shown in Table 3. We suggest that free reuse groups age e 53 years with a standard deviation of 13 years). The re- present affordances for participants to enact not only self- spondents were drawn from households with a range of incomes: transcendence values, but also the values of openness to change 39% e household income under £25,000; 35% e between £25,000 and conservation (as emphasised in clusters 1 and 2 respectively). Furthermore, these affordances include opportunities to engage in action that: is orientated towards social or sustainable develop- 2 The European Social Survey (ESS) conducted in 2012 included the PVQ ment (self-transcendence); leads to new, novel or alternative ex- (European Social Survey, 2012b) and was completed by representative sample of the UK population (European Social Survey, 2012a) e 2269 people (over the age of periences (openness to change); and/or resonates with personal 15). and societal concepts of conservation in the broad sense C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 209

Table 2 The basic values of survey respondents and the general population.

Survey respondents General population

Mean value score Std. deviation Mean value score Std. deviation

Conservation Security 0.03 0.97 0.51 0.76 Conformity 0.34 1.06 0.12 0.97 Tradition 0.11 0.91 0.05 0.88 Self-transcendence Benevolence 0.94 0.73 0.81 0.63 Universalism 1.02 0.71 0.56 0.63 Openness to change Self-Direction 0.72 0.83 0.40 0.76 Stimulation 0.33 0.98 0.64 0.99 Hedonism 0.60 0.90 0.44 0.94 Self-enhancement Achievement 0.53 0.96 0.42 0.94 Power 1.27 0.74 1.00 0.88

Fig. 4. Mean basic values scores e UK population and all survey respondents (negative scores indicate that the value is emphasised by members of the sample).

Table 3 The basic values of Freegle participants by cluster. Mean diff ¼ mean value score (cluster) e mean value score (UK population). Annotated with (g) e statistically significant mean differences where cluster members tend to emphasise the value to a greater degree than the UK population. Annotated with (l) e statistically significant mean dif- ferences where cluster members tend to emphasise the value to a lesser degree than the UK population. See supplementary data 2, 3 and 4 for full details of the results of the independent samples t-tests comparing the mean value scores of cluster members and the UK population.

(% Survey respondents) Cluster 1 (37%) Cluster 2 (23%) Cluster 3 (40%)

Values Mean value score SD Mean diff Mean value score SD Mean diff Mean value score SD Mean diff

Conservation Security 0.56 0.93 1.07 (l) 0.32 0.96 0.19 (l) 0.27 0.78 0.24 (l) Conformity 1.15 0.86 1.04 (l) 0.36 0.89 0.48 (g) 0.03 0.80 0.15 (g) Tradition 0.52 0.86 0.57 (l) 0.66 0.74 0.61 (g) 0.16 0.74 0.20 (l) Self-transcendence Benevolence 1.10 0.66 0.29 (g) 1.41 0.57 0.60 (g) 0.52 0.63 0.29 (l) Universalism 1.39 0.57 0.82 (g) 1.35 0.53 0.78 (g) 0.49 0.57 0.07 (l) Openness to change Self-Direction 1.20 0.71 0.79 (g) 0.53 0.83 0.12 (g) 0.39 0.73 0.01 Stimulation 0.29 0.86 0.93 (g) 1.05 0.82 0.40 (l) 0.50 0.80 0.14 (g) Hedonism 0.36 0.90 0.08 1.31 0.74 0.87 (l) 0.42 0.75 0.02 Self-enhancement Achievement 0.56 0.94 0.14 (l) 1.26 0.80 0.84 (l) 0.08 0.77 0.35 (g) Power 1.52 0.66 0.51 (l) 1.67 0.64 0.67 (l) 0.80 0.62 0.20 (g)

(conservation). In Table 4 we provide a brief overview of some of consistent with their values (Foden, 2012). The activists seek to the means by which participants can enact basic values within free project a value-free or value neutral image around the practice of reuse groups. free reuse (as shown in Fig. 6). Through such projection the free reuse group becomes, we would suggest, a boundary object (Star 5.2. Responding to and mobilising the values of free reuse group and Griesemer, 1989: 393) e i.e. an object with “different mean- participants ings in [the] different social worlds” of different users. Hence, we suggest participants can see different values reflected in, and can The flexibility for participants to enact different values within enact different values through, free reuse groups. For instance, free reuse groups did not arise by serendipity. Rather free reuse participants can enact, or see reflected, either conservation or activists construct and maintain spaces in which participants can openness to change values, alongside self-transcendence values (as meet their waste disposal and consumption needs in a way that is discussed above). This value-neutral image is constructed by 210 C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213

Fig. 5. Mean basic values scores e UK population and clusters 1, 2 and 3 (negative scores indicate that the value is emphasised by members of the sample).

Table 4 Some means by which participants can enact values in free reuse groups.

Value Enacted by participants in free reuse groups by

Self-transcendence Reducing one's environmental impact by extending the lifespan of an item (Foden, 2012); Helping someone in need to obtain an item that could improve their quality of life (Groomes and Seyfang, 2012; Guillard and Bucchia, 2012b; Nelson and Rademacher, 2009); Supporting one's local community (Nelson et al., 2007). Openness to change Forming connections with members of a local community and meeting new people when giving away or receiving an item (Foden, 2012; Nelson et al., 2007); Engaging in an alternative form of waste disposal, consumption and/or charitable giving practice (Guillard and Bucchia, 2012b); Freely choosing who to give an item to (enacting the value of self-direction). Conservation Engaging in an act that extends the stewardship and life of the item, and hence in a basic sense conserves resources and exercises frugality; Performing the practice of thrift (Foden, 2012) e although this may be a necessity for some members, is it likely to be a traditional practice for others, with echoes of post-war austerity; Engaging with one's local community e as a traditional activity that predates the atomised communities of capitalist society (cf (Putnam, 2000) Bowling Alone).

restricting the explicit objective of the groups to reducing the social and environmental justice (Foden, 2012; Nelson and amount of waste sent to landfill. This is an objective with appeal Rademacher, 2009; Nelson et al., 2007). Hence the redistribution spanning ideological and value-driven perspectives and enables the of items from affluent group members to economically and socially groups to build a coalition of participants with a diverse range of disadvantaged members, and the reduction of member's environ- values and perhaps motivations. However, the central role of self- mental impact, become desirable side effects of free reuse groups, transcendence values cannot be fully concealed. Whilst, the core towards which participant values are mobilised. rules governing the groups are minimal they do mandate that all items must be given freely. By establishing, supporting and growing free reuse groups, free 5.3. Implications for the diffusion of grassroots innovations reuse activists mobilise the values of participants for particular and tangible ends: the values are ‘performed’. In particular, as discussed Rogers (1962:5)defines diffusion as “the process by which an above, with the central and explicit objective of keeping usable innovation is communicated through certain channels over time items in use (and out of landfill). The efforts of activists to increase among the members of a social system.” In terms of the implica- participation in groups e e.g. raising awareness of groups via tions our research for the diffusion of grassroots innovations, we traditional and new forms of media and engaging in collaborations view the study as supportive of the premise that the rate and extent with local government and non-profit organisations e can be of the diffusion of grassroots innovation through society is related viewed as instrumental (i.e. keeping more items in use). However, to the degree of fit with wider values. In the case of online free they also necessarily seek to propagate the values of self- reuse groups, the distribution of values appears unlikely to be a transcendence that are so central to processes and structures of limiting factor: the survey results show that many current partici- the groups. Furthermore, although free reuse groups do not have an pants (Cluster 3, 40% of the sample) have similar self- explicit environmental or political agenda, some activists and par- transcendence values to the general population. However, we ticipants do make connections between the groups and concepts of note that the sample of survey respondents was self-selecting and C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 211

projections in the case of Freegle are arguably just that (pro- jections): despite participants holding a spread of values, the um- brella organisation and the majority of participants and activists do enact and seek to propagate particular pro-social values. This raises the question of the extent to which other grassroots innovations also make, or could make more use of value neutral projections to create space for the enactment of a range of values, whilst at the same time furthering innovations that are nonetheless bottom-up and value-driven.

5.4. Research directions

The conceptual model above embodies concepts and causal processes intended to help analyse, characterise and explain the mobilisation of values within online free reuse communities. However, many opportunities remain to further develop and apply the model in studies of other forms of grassroots innovations. We highlight two such opportunities below. Focussing on basic values has proved useful as an analytical device, obliging us to be explicit about which values are being mobilised and by whom. However, grassroots innovation research suggests that other, non-basic values and also more specific attitudes (e.g. deep green values and anti-consumption attitudes respectively) can also play an important role in driving societal experiments (e.g. Seyfang et al., 2014; Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Furthermore, where participants use free reuse groups to engage in the practices of ethical con- sumption (Foden, 2012), it is likely that anti-capitalist values (Shaw Fig. 6. A snapshot of the Freegle homepage (Freegle, 2014b). et al., 2005) and ecological citizenship values (Seyfang, 2006) also play important motivational roles. Also, a large body of work within hence may not be representative of general population of free reuse environmental psychology is premised on a distinction between group participants (as discussed in detail in Section 3.2). biospheric, egotistical and social-altruistic values and orientations We now turn to identify other potential barriers to the diffusion (Stern and Dietz, 1994). Much debate in value, behaviour and norm of online free reuse groups. First, we note that as groups are run by theory revolves around whether there is a separate biospheric volunteers and reliant on generosity and trust between strangers, value orientation, as in factor analytic studies, social altruistic and potential users may be deterred by a lack of confidence in the biospheric value items tend to load on the same factor (Schwartz, groups themselves and the quality of the items offered (Vermeir 1992; Stern et al., 1999, 1995). and Verbeke, 2008). Secondly, we suggest that the economic and Thus while we have used one particular conceptualisation of political institutions that limit the potential for environmental basic values, there are debates regarding their detailed nature, behaviours in general (Blake, 1999), may also limit the impact of particularly regarding the nature of environmental concern. There efforts to increase participation in free reuse groups. Thirdly, it is are also long-standing debates and much work in relation to the possible that diffusion may be limited by an incongruence in the relationships between values, norms, attitudes and behaviour. practices of online free reuse groups, relative to the prevailing, Further research is required to understand the full range of values habitual and routine practices of consumption and waste disposal involved in grassroots innovations and how these values relate to (Hargreaves et al., 2013b), practices which themselves are sup- specific attitudes operative in grassroots innovation contexts. ported by institutionalised procedures that together exemplify the Indeed, from a sociological, practice-based perspective, attitudes structural challenges faced by grassroots innovations (Seyfang and are conditional on practices rather than vice versa (Shove, 2010) Smith, 2007). The interplay of practices and values itself merits and it can be reasonably hypothesised, as above, that existing further attention (Piscicelli et al., 2015). practices are also important, perhaps as important as values, in the The objectives of online free reuse groups are a form of socio- diffusion of grassroots innovations. From a practice theory technical change that to some extent conflicts with prevailing re- perspective, attitudes are seen as a part of dispositions that are gimes and social practices. Even if there is a perhaps surprising physically, cognitively and emotionally integrated into ways of degree of value overlap with wider society, free reuse groups and living; practices are also seen as nested and integrated, connected (we would suggest) many other grassroots innovations enact, seek in multiplicities of arrangements that make up lifestyles (Warde, to propagate and express both marginal and marginalised values. 2005). From this perspective, those involved in promoting the Politics and power are bound up in these processes, with active diffusion of grassroots innovations need to consider not only how resistance by the prevailing regimes (Geels, 2014) that tend to enact and what values are projected, but also: what types of practice are rather different values, notably the high levels of consumption prevalent in related contexts (Hargreaves et al., 2013b); their required by systems of provision dependent on economic growth typical combinations; levels of commitment to these; how ‘careers’ and material throughput. Extending the use period (life) of prod- within practices begin, develop and end; how people come to an ucts through sharing is contradictory to the latter. understanding of what is required by the practice and their role We have suggested that the projection of a value-neutral image within it and so on (Hargreaves et al., 2013b). and the flexibility to enact different values within free reuse groups There is also the potential to more explicitly integrate aspects of are likely to have played an important role in the diffusion of the socio-technical transitions theory into the model above. For innovation to date, supporting a relatively large coalition of activ- example, research might consider which values are enacted and ists and participants with diverse values. Despite this, value neutral propagated by the prevailing socio-technical systems that serve 212 C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 societal needs (i.e. the regime level of the MLP (Geels, 2005)), Directors of Freegle who provided very helpful feedback during the exploring how these dynamics may limit or open up opportunities survey design process. We are also grateful to the editors of the for grassroots and other forms of innovation. In particular, there is Journal of Cleaner Production for their support and encouragement scope here for considering how values relate to the dynamics throughout the publication process, and the two anonymous re- posited as operative not just in the MLP, but in broader conceptions viewers who provided insightful comments which helped shape of socio-technical change. Theorists observe that transitions in the final paper. general tend to be dependent on particular conditions. de Haan and Rotmans (2011) conceive of these as (a) cultural and structural Appendix A. Supplementary data tensions; (b) a degree of internal inconsistency (stress); and (c) pressures from inside or outside of the regime. de Haan and Supplementary data related to this article can be found at http:// Rotmans (2011) also speak of particular, sequential patterns or dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.062. processes that transitions undergo, namely empowerment, recon- stellation and adaptation: as socio-technical constellations build in strength, they become materially and cognitively installed and the References regime form shifts to accommodate the innovation. In the context Battilana, J., Leca, B., Boxenbaum, E., 2009. How actors change institutions: towards of sustainability, these tensions, stresses and subsequent processes a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Ann. 3, 65e107. might be viewed as reflecting and involving long term value shifts Black, I.R., Cherrier, H., 2010. Anti-consumption as part of living a sustainable life- that in the MLP would be located at the ‘landscape’ level. Indeed, as style: daily practices, contextual motivations and subjective values. J. Consum. Behav. 9, 437e453. Leiserowitz et al. (2006) identify a fundamental change is needed in Blake, J., 1999. Overcoming the 'ValueeAction Gap' in environmental policy: ten- how societies' prioritise values to make the transition to sustain- sions between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 4, 257e278. ability. However it is also possible that the scope of environmental Botsman, R., Rogers, R., 2011. What's Mine Is Yours: How Collaborative Consump- tion Is Changing the Way We Live. Collins, London, UK. protection is being increasingly broadened and understood as an Boyer, R., 2014. Sociotechnical transitions and urban planning: a case study of eco- expression of social altruistic values, in the terminology of value, cohousing in Tompkins County, New York. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 34, 451e464. behaviour and norm theory. This would represent more of a con- Bulkeley, H., Castan-Broto, V., Hodson, M., Marvin, S. (Eds.), 2010. Cities and Low ceptual or cognitive change than a value change. More broadly, Carbon Transitions, London: Routledge. Carrington, M., Neville, B., Whitwell, G., 2010. Why ethical consumers don't walk therefore, values are related to longstanding discussion and debate their talk: towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical as to the role of individual agents and agency in structural change purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded con- e (Giddens, 1984), by providing a motive for intention and action. sumers. J. Bus. Ethics 97, 139 158. Chen, K.K., Lune, H., Queen, E.L., 2013. How values shape and are shaped by nonprofit and voluntary organizations: the current state of the field. Nonprofit 6. Conclusion Volunt. Sect. Q. 42, 856e885. De Haan, J., Rotmans, J., 2011. Patterns in transitions: understanding complex chains of change. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78, 90e102. There is growing interest in civil society as an overlooked site Dendler, L., 2014. Sustainability Meta Labelling: an effective measure to facilitate from which ‘grassroots social innovations’ may emerge, with sig- more sustainable consumption and production? J. Clean. Prod. 63, 74e83. nificant potential to contribute to the transition to more sustainable Dietz, T., Fitzgerald, A., Shwom, R., 2005. Environmental values. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 335e372. production and consumption systems. We offer a conceptual model European Social Survey, 2012a. Sampling for the European Social Survey Round VI: of the role that values may play in grassroots innovations as they Principles and Requirements. Available: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/ seek to emerge from niche to regime. Applying psychological value docs/round6/methods/ESS6_sampling_guidelines.pdf (accessed 19.11.14.). European Social Survey, 2012b. United Kingdom e Documents and Data Files scales in a large scale survey of participants in UK online free reuse [Online]. Available: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/country.html? groups, we find that while values of self-transcendence (benevo- c¼united_kingdom (accessed 19.11.14.). lence and universalism) are emphasised by a majority of the par- Foden, M., 2012. Everyday consumption practices as a site for activism? exploring & ticipants to a significantly greater extent than in the UK population the motivations of grassroots reuse groups. People, Place Policy Online 6, 148e163. as a whole, a large minority (40%) actually emphasise self- Freecycle, 2009. When Members Solicit Sales in Response to a WANTED Post transcendence values to a lesser degree than the UK population. [Online]. Available: http://wiki.freecycle.org/When_Members_Solicit_Sales_in_ Moreover, those participants who do emphasise self-transcendent Response_to_a_WANTED_Post (accessed 13.03.15.). Freecycle, 2014. The Freecycle Network [Online]. Available: https://www.freecycle. values are not mono-dimensional in their value sets, but also org/ (accessed 11.11.14.). hold other values that are of significance to the wider population. Freegle, 2014a. About Freegle [Online]. Available: http://www.ilovefreegle.org/ While this is to be expected, there is surprisingly little work on the about/ (accessed 19.11.14.). Freegle, 2014b. Stuff You Don't Need? Freegle it! [Online]. Available: http:// role of values in relation to concepts of socio-technical transition ilovefreegle.org/ (accessed 11.11.14.). and even more specifically in relation to grassroots innovations as a Geels, F., Raven, R., 2006. Non-linearity and expectations in niche-development feature of transitions. Yet in the pro-environmental psychology trajectories: ups and downs in Dutch biogas development (1973e2003). Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 18, 375e392. literature, values and norms are key constructs in explaining Geels, F.W., 2005. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi- behaviour, albeit with empirically inconsistent relationships e for level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to auto- which reason we also refer to the practice literature as attentive to mobiles (1860e1930). Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 17, 445e476. fl Geels, F.W., 2014. Regime resistance against low-carbon transitions: introducing posited structural, as well as psychological in uences on behaviour. politics and power into the multi-level perspective. Theory, Cult. Soc. 31, 21e40. Indeed, overall, the study could be said to raise more questions than Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structura- it answers and we offer several research directions for what we tion. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK. consider to be a promising avenue of work in relation to transitions Groomes, L., Seyfang, G., 2012. Secondhand Spaces and Sustainable Consumption: Examining Freecycle's Environmental Impacts and User Motivations. Available: dynamics. http://www.3s.uea.ac.uk/publications/secondhand-spaces-and-sustainable- consumption-examining-freecycle%E2%80%99s-environmental-impac Acknowledgements (accessed 19.11.14.). Guillard, V., Bucchia, C.D., 2012a. How about giving my things away over the internet? when internet makes it easier to give things away. In: Gürhan- This research was supported by an ESRC Management and Canli, Z., Otnes, C., Zhu, R.J. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research. Association Business Development Fellowship grant (ES/L00271X/1). We would for Consumer Research, Duluth, MN. Guillard, V., Bucchia, C.D., 2012b. When online recycling enables givers to escape like to thank all those involved in Freegle who distributed and took the tensions of the gift economy. In: Belk, R.W., Askegaard, S., Scott, L. (Eds.), part in the survey, in particular Edward Hibbert and the other Research in Consumer Behavior. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. C.J. Martin, P. Upham / Journal of Cleaner Production 134 (2016) 204e213 213

Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013a. Grassroots innovations in Schwartz, S.H., 2006. Les valeurs de base de la personne: theorie, mesures et ap- community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Glob. plications. Rev. française Sociol. 47, 929e968. Environ. Change 23, 868e880. Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W., 1987. Toward a universal psychological structure of hu- Hargreaves, T., Longhurst, N., Seyfang, G., 2013b. Up, down, round and round: man values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 53, 550e562. connecting regimes and practices in innovation for sustainability. Environ. Plan. Schwartz, S.H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., A 45, 402e420. Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lonnqvist,€ J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., Heiskanen, E., Jalas, M., Rinkinen, J., Tainio, P., 2015. The local community as a Konty, M., 2012. Refining the theory of basic individual values. J. Personal. Soc. “low-carbon lab”: promises and perils. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 14, Psychol. 103, 663e688. 149e164. Seyfang, G., 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: examining Hitlin, S., Piliavin, J.A., 2004. Values: reviving a dormant concept. Annu. Rev. Sociol. local organic food networks. J. Rural Stud. 22, 383e395. 30, 359e393. Seyfang, G., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M., Smith, A., 2014. Hodson, M., Marvin, S., 2010. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the would we know if they were? Res. Policy 39, 477e485. UK. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 13, 21e44. Jones, S., 2009. Accusations of Very Tight Control Split UK Recycling Network from Seyfang, G., Longhurst, N., 2013. Desperately seeking niches: grassroots innovations US Parent [Online]. The Guardian. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/ and niche development in the community currency field. Glob. Environ. Change environment/2009/oct/12/freecycle-freegle-recycling-networks-groups 23, 881e891. (accessed 19.11.14.). Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Kirwan, J., Ilbery, B., Maye, D., Carey, J., 2013. Grassroots social innovations and food towards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Polit. 16, 584e603. localisation: an investigation of the local food programme in England. Glob. Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., Thomson, J., 2005. An exploration of values Environ. Change 23, 830e837. in ethical consumer decision making. J. Consum. Behav. 4, 185e200. Lawrence, T., Suddaby, R., Leca, B., 2011. Institutional work: refocusing institutional Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social studies of organization. J. Manag. Inq. 20, 52e58. change. Environ. Plan. A 42, 1273e1285. Leiserowitz, A.A., Kates, R.W., Parris, T.M., 2006. Sustainability values, attitudes, and Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Thomas, H., 2014. Grassroots innovation movements: chal- behaviors: a review of multinational and global trends. Annu. Rev. Environ. lenges and contributions. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 114e124. Resour. 31, 413e444. Smith, A., Raven, R., 2012. What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field transitions to sustainability. Res. Policy 41, 1025e1036. of research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41, 955e967. Smith, A., Voß, J.-P., Grin, J., 2010. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: Nelson, M.R., Rademacher, M.A., 2009. From trash to treasure: Freecycle.org as a the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 39, case of generalized reciprocity. Adv. Consum. Res. 36, 905e906. 435e448. Nelson, M.R., Rademacher, M.A., Paek, H.-J., 2007. Downshifting Star, S.L., Griesemer, J.R., 1989. Institutional ecology, ‘Translations’ and boundary consumer ¼ upshifting citizen? an examination of a local freecycle community. objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 611, 141e156. Zoology, 1907-39. Soc. Stud. Sci. 19, 387e420. Piscicelli, L., Cooper, T., Fisher, T., 2015. The role of values in collaborative con- Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmental concern. J. Soc. Issues 50, sumption: insights from a product-service system for lending and borrowing in 65e84. the UK. J. Clean. Prod. 97, 21e29. Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. A value-belief-norm Putnam, R.D., 2000. Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Com- theory of support for social movements: the case of environmentalism. Hum. munity. Simon and Schuster, New York. Ecol. Rev. 6, 81e98. Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S., Lambin, E.F., Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. The New Ecological Paradigm in social- Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., De Wit, C.A., psychological context. Environ. Behav. 27, 723e743. Hughes, T., Van Der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R., The World Bank, 2014. Urban Population (% of Total) [Online]. Available: http://data. Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS/countries?display¼graph (accessed Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe 18.11.14.). operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472e475. Vergragt, P., Akenji, L., Dewick, P., 2014. Sustainable production, consumption, and Rogers, E.M., 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press, New York, USA. livelihoods: global and regional research perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 63, 1e12. Rousseeuw, P.J., 1987. Silhouettes: a graphical aid to the interpretation and valida- Vermeir, I., Verbeke, W., 2008. Sustainable food consumption among young adults tion of cluster analysis. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 20, 53e65. in Belgium: theory of planned behaviour and the role of confidence and values. Schrader, U., 2007. The moral responsibility of consumers as citizens. Int. J. Innov. Ecol. Econ. 64, 542e553. Sustain. Dev. 2, 79e96. Warde, A., 2005. Consumption and theories of practice. J. Consum. Cult. 5, 131e153. Schwartz, S.H., 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical Willer, R., Flynn, F.J., Zak, S., 2012. Structure, identity, and solidarity: a comparative advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 25, 1e65. field study of generalized and direct exchange. Adm. Sci. Q. 57, 119e155. Schwartz, S.H., 1999. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Young, W., Hwang, K., Mcdonald, S., Oates, C.J., 2010. Sustainable consumption: Appl. Psychol. 48, 23e47. green consumer behaviour when purchasing products. Sustain. Dev. 18, 20e31.